And, to answer your question (“can you even give me scriptural warrant for such a claim”):

Psalm 12
Proverbs 30
Matthew 4

Assuming 2 Tim 2 (as above) is taken, then the scriptures must be inerrant or flawed. Speaking in hyperbole versus historical is the delineation between your examples (gouge out an eye, etc.). The style of Genesis is historical narrative.

God used men with different styles to convey his message to men. He did not, however, use deceptive means of men. Or so the belief I hold.

If David or I or Westminster believe in inerrancy in that the bible is inerrant (does not contain errors), then we are upholding our beliefs by saying that someone who believes the bible to be flawed and authored (originated) by humans shouldn’t teach at our institution. It would lack integrity to allow someone to teach a contradictory belief. That was the start of all of this.

David extrapolated, though, to say that false doctrine should not be taught. Or I assume that is what he meant.

Lastly, I think that the reason it is (easily) seen (by, uh, fundamentalists, I suppose, but that seems to lack breadth) as so black and white is where does the line get drawn? It seems to be a digital answer. Either the bible is true and error free (since it was authored by God, recorded by men) or it is not. And if it isn’t error free, what is off-limits for the “this is not 100% scientifically accurate” statement? The Flood? The Walls of Jericoh? The Virgin birth? Christ’s resurrection? But I suppose we will have to disagree on that.

Have a great, fundamentalist-free day.

Brian

I believe that I understand very clearly what you’re saying, but if I’m wrong, please enlighten me.

Fundamentalists???? Really? If you mean by that that I believe in the fundamentals of the faith, then I welcome that label. It’s a compliment. But, if you mean the Sword of the Lord, Bob Jones type of Believer, then you’ve mischaracterized me greatly.

David

I never said the passage in Joshua wasn’t true. Are you even reading what I’m writing, or are you just reading what you want me to be writing? You have already written me off as some type of liberal who is possibly not saved and are reading your presuppositions into every claim that I make. You’re not understanding any of my points, and instead you just come back with 5 proof-texts and a question about my salvation.

Fundamentalists are impossible to converse with. We’ll just leave it at that volfan, thanks for talking to me.

2 John 9-11

2 Peter 2

the entire book of Jude

Rev. 2:2

There are many more passages about not allowing false teachers to influence the Church.

David

Only an idiot, or someone with an anti-Bible, anti-God agenda would say that the things you mention prove that there are contradictions and errors in the Bible. Of course, Jesus used hyberbole in a rhetorical sense, like with the pluck your eye out thing. He was trying to get them to understand the seriousness of their sin. And, the hate your mother thing was simply a degree of comparison, and the context shows that. Everything that you and some others have brought up has some very simple explanations when you take it in context. And, of course, the Bible has parables and poetry in it. God uses all of that. And, all of your so called contradictions can be explained with just a little study. They’re not contradictions at all. But, when the Bible speaks of science, then it’s true. When the Bible makes historical statements, then they are true. And, if someone denies that they are true, then that person is a liberal. They have a low view of Scripture. They are walking a very dangerous line, and they need to check out their spiritual condition to see if they’re really saved, or not.

Listen, John, if we cant believe that the Sun stood still in the sky…however you want to phrase that…then how can we believe that Jesus died for our sins? If we cant believe that God created the universe by speaking it into existence, then how can we believe what the Bible teaches about Heaven?

I’ll go a step farther. If all the Bible has errors, then we need to close the Churches; throw away our Bibles; grab a beer and light up a joint; live in sinful pleasure; and just wait to die a hopeless, miserable death.

David

I hope you’re understanding my point here volfan. We can’t just have a “The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it” attitude (which you seem to have, judging by your last comments). It’s a little more complicated than that. When the Bible says the sun stood still, you’re right to say that the sun didn’t move in the sky. However, the science behind that is off, because technically, the earth stopped rotating. So lets allow room in our heremeneutics and view of inerrancy for such accomodation and figurative language. Lets not only do that, but lets qualify our statements about the Bible being 100% scientifically accurate and has 0 contradictions as well (there are obvious contradictions is things like between the Gospels or Chronicles/Kings, but read the book of Ecclesiastes and you will find contradictions within the very book. However, none of this is a problem to me because I take into account authorial intent and the literary genre each writer espouses, and you should do the same). In doing so, we will not look like uneducated fundamentalists who are clearly not viewing the evidence. My problem is with the rhetoric behind the whole “inerrancy” thing, and the funny thing is, the Bible itself never claims to be “inerrant.” It’s basically a post-enlightenment belief formulated to counter-react against liberal theology. Quit acting like it’s the difference between saved/not saved (to say somebody who doesn’t believe in inerrancy should not be teaching is ludicrous…can you even give me scriptural warrant for such a claim?)

When the Bible says that God created the Earth in 7 days….it means 7 days.

When the Bible says that the Sun stood still, the Sun didnt move in the sky.

When the Bible said that the Earth was a sphere, or a ball shape, in one of the Psalms, then it was found to be accurate.

When the Bible says that the city of Ai exists, then we need to believe it.

And, someone who would deny the clear understanding of the Bible, when they say that there are myths in Genesis 1-11, or that there are contradictions in the Bible, then that person has crossed the line into error, and they should not be teaching others.

The question is, are you defending this kind of teaching? Are you saying that someone can believe that there’s contradictions in Ezekiel, and still be true to God? Are you saying that we, men, can pick and choose which parts of the Bible that we’re gonna believe to be true, and which we’re not?

David